Damn the Jews!

In 1943, news of the slaughter of Europe’s Jews by Hitler and his cohorts
began to trickle out of Nazi-occupied Europe. Early in the Fall of that year, a delegation of
400 rabbis travelled to Washington “to convey personally to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
how precarious the lives of Jews in Europe had become and to request decisive action against the
death camps to which the Jews were being transported. - - -
“. . . The rabbis assigned a select group to meet with President Roosevelt
at the White House. They were shocked and offended to be told that the president did not have even
a few minutes to meet with them.
“. . . Their dire warnings regarding the fate of Europe’s Jews were,
of course, entirely accurate. But the president, like his successor in office more than
70 years later, was not interested in meeting with Jewish leaders and having them describe to
him directly the life threatening danger facing Jews abroad. [Emphasis mine] - - -
“. . . U. S. presidents can be moved – and American foreign policy can be
affected – by face-to-face discussions . . .
“{President Harry} Truman’s willingness to meet with, and listen to,
{Chaim} Weizmann and {Eddie} Jacobson reportedly led him to reject the advice of his secretary
of state and White House insiders and to promptly recognize the newborn state of Israel. Roosevelt,
on the other hand, refused even to listen to the message the rabbis were bringing to Washington.
Like President Obama’s blanket rejection more than 70 years later of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the
refusal silences the message by shutting out the messenger.
“Reports that later emerged from White House insiders established that
Roosevelt – like President Obama and Vice President Biden – did not really have anything important
on his schedule to justify his refusal to meet Jewish leaders. Roosevelt sneaked out of the White
House through a rear exit rather than meet with the 400 rabbis. His top Jewish advisor and
speechwriter Samuel Rosenman told him – much as J Street is now telling President Obama and
Congressional Democrats – that he would be best served by avoiding the rabbis.” (Ref. 1)

Damn the Jews, Israel and perhaps the rest of the world!
After all, we’re only talking about the a nuclear-armed Iran, with Russian intercontinental
missile technology, that has promised to annihilate Israel, murder all Jews and destroy that
“Great Satan”, the United States of America.

Why is the Israeli Prime Minister going to Washington in spite of the
hostility of the American President and all the advice to cancel his trip? The following, in the
Prime Minister’s own words, is a summation of his reasons. Read it and decide for yourself whether
we, along with President Obama and other members of our government should listen to what he has to
tell us.

“Why am I going to Washington? Because, as prime minister of Israel, it’s
my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal that could threaten
the survival of the State of Israel.
“The current proposal to Iran would endanger Israel. It would enable Iran
to build its first nuclear device within an unacceptably short time. And it would allow Iran to build
an industrial capability to enrich uranium that could provide the fuel for many bombs in the coming
years.
“A regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction would thus have finally
the means to realize its genocidal aims.
“Now mind you, I’m not opposed to any deal with Iran. I’m opposed to a bad
deal with Iran. And I believe this is a very bad deal.
“I’m certainly not opposed to negotiations. On the contrary: No country has a
greater stake in the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear question than does Israel.
“But the current proposal won’t solve the problem. It will perpetuate and
aggravate the problem. It would provide a path for Iran to become a nuclear power. And so it’s very
important that I speak about this in Washington.
“Why am I going to Congress? Because Israel has been offered the chance to
make its case on this crucial issue before the world’s most important parliament; because a speech
before Congress allows Israel to present its position to the elected representatives of the American
people and to a worldwide audience; because Congress has played a critical role in applying pressure
to the Iranian regime — the very pressure that brought the ayatollahs to the negotiating table in the
first place, and because Congress may well have a say on any final deal.
“I think the real question is: How could any responsible Israeli prime minister
refuse to speak to Congress on a matter so important to Israel’s survival?
“How could anyone refuse an invitation to speak on a matter that could affect
our very existence when such an invitation is offered?
“Why go now? The deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran is March 24.
That date drives the speech. Now is the time for Israel to make its case — before it’s too late.
“Would it be better to complain about a deal that threatens the security of
Israel after it’s signed? It’s more responsible to speak out now to try to influence the negotiations
while they’re still ongoing.
“The whole point of Zionism is that the Jewish people would no longer be
spectators to the decision-making that determines our fate. We were once powerless. We were once
voiceless. We couldn’t even speak on our own behalf. Well, now we can and we do.
“The answer to all three questions is the same. Why Congress? Why Washington?
Why now? Because of the grave dangers posed by the deal on the table right now.
“I don’t see this in partisan terms. The survival of Israel is not a
partisan issue. It concerns everyone, all supporters of Israel of every political stripe.
“The fight against militant Islamic terrorism is not a partisan issue.
The battle against the Islamic State, which just beheaded 21 Christians, is not. And the effort to
prevent the Islamic Republic from building nuclear weapons, that’s not a partisan issue either.
“The pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security
challenge facing the world. The greatest danger facing humanity is the possibility that any movement
or any regime of militant Islam will arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.
“Everything that we see in our region now will pale by comparison. Everything
that we see in Europe will pale by comparison.
“When a militant Islamic regime that is rampaging through the region right
now — that’s what Iran is doing, it’s conducting a rampage through the region — when such a regime has
nuclear weapons, the whole world will be in peril.
“Look at what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. States are collapsing —
and Iran is plunging forward. It already controls four capitals.
“It’s trying to envelop Israel with three terrorist tentacles — Hezbollah in
Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and now it’s trying to build with its Hezbollah proxies a third front in the Golan.
“With nuclear weapons, such a regime would be infinitely more dangerous to
everyone, not only to Israel.
“Can I guarantee that my speech in Congress will prevent a dangerous deal with
Iran from being signed? Honestly, I don’t know. No one knows.
“But I do know this — it’s my sacred duty as prime minister of Israel to make
Israel’s case. On March 3, I’ll fulfill that duty, representing all the citizens of Israel before the
two houses of Congress.
“And I’ll make the best case for Israel that I can, knowing that our case is
just, that our case is sound and that our case offers the best hope to resolve this issue
peacefully.” (Ref. 2)

Just how real is the Iranian threat to Israel – and to the rest of the Middle East?
A former so called "moderate" Iranian president once “characterized Israel as a one-bomb country.
He acknowledged Israel’s deterrent capacity but noted the asymmetry: ‘Application of an atomic bomb
would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.'
“Result? Israel eradicated, Islam vindicated. So much for deterrence.
“An even if deterrence worked with Tehran, that’s not where the story ends.
“Iran’s very acquisition of nukes would set off a nuclear arms race with half a
dozen Muslim countries from Turkey to Egypt to the Gulf states – in the most unstable part of the world.
A place where you wake up in the morning to find a pro-American Yemeni government overthrown by rebels
whose slogan is ‘God is Great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Damn the Jews. Power to Islam.’ - - -
“The Iranian bomb is {an American} national security issue, an alliance issue,
and a Middle East issue. But it is also a uniquely Jewish issue because of Israel’s situation as the only
state on earth overtly threatened with extinction, facing potential nuclear power overtly threatening
that extinction.
“On the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz, mourning dead Jews is easy. And, forgive
me, cheap. Want to truly honor the dead? Show solidarity with the living – Israel and its 6 million Jews.
Make ‘never again’ more than a n empty phrase. It took Nazi Germany seven years to kill 6 million Jews.
It would take a nuclear Iran one day.” (Ref. 3)

Does anyone really think the madmen in Tehran would hesitate to use an atomic bomb
if they had one? Look around at the jihadists and the radical Islamic suicide bombers and terrorists. Do
they hesitate to murder innocent civilians or to commit suicide in their perverted view of the Muslim
faith?

“President Obama {is} determinedly pursu{ing} his policy of appeasement,
which may enable the world’s most dangerous terrorist state to become a nuclear threshold power . . . - - -
“{This, while} Israel remains the target for annihilation of the
Holocaust-denying Iranians, who brazenly repeat their determination to eradicate the ‘cancerous’
Israel from the map. . . .” (Ref. 4)

Israel’s prime minister has accepted an invitation from the American Congress
to present the facts, as Israel sees them, to Congress and the American people. President Obama has
chosen to accuse Prime Minister Netanyahu of making his acceptance a partisan issue.

“It is in fact Obama, not Netanyahu, who has made this a partisan issue,
because of {the president’s} fear that an effective presentation by Netanyahu at Congress could
have a major impact on legislators and the public. . . . - - -
“. . . Obama’s repeated and crudely appalling behavior aimed at humiliating
his ally, the Israeli prime minister {is} in direct contrast to his servility to representatives of
rogue states including Iran. - - -
“{Prime Minister} Netanyahu is desperately appealing to the world to prevent
an evil, apocalyptic Islamic terrorist state, committed to Israel’s destruction, from becoming a
nuclear power.. . . - - -
“{At the same time,} there is in fact a growing awareness that Obama’s
proposed deal represents a sellout to the Iranians. - - -
“. . . Those committed to overcoming the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism
and preserving the well-being of the Jewish state should pray that Netanyahu succeeds in his
efforts.”(Ref. 4)

Is it too much to ask this American president to hear what one concerned
Jew and the democratically elected representative of America’s only true ally in the Middle East has
to say? Is a bad deal better than no deal? As one American reporter remarked, “U. S. efforts to cut
a deal with Iran over its development of nuclear materials now have about them the stench of desperation.
If this is to be the crowning achievement of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, this
nation and the Middle East are in deep trouble.” (Ref. 5)

It would seem that something as important as a report from the leader of an
American ally in a highly volatile region of the world concerning an imminent threat to his country,
to other nations in his region of the world, to the United States, and potentially to all other countries
of the world, would warrant a meeting, a discussion, and close attention to the what that leader had to say.
Not just the President of the United States should be interested in hearing what Netanyahu has to say,
but so should all of us. We might not like what Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say, we might not believe
what he reports and we might not approve of any actions that he might recommend. But, we would
be fools not to listen to what he has to say! In this case, as was the case in 1943, ignorance
is not bliss – It is sheer stupidity! Unfortunately, it appears that our president is afraid of what
the Israeli Prime Minister will say because it might influence the American people and the American
Congress to oppose a bad deal with Iran – a bad deal that President Obama may be trying to make in
spite of future consequences. It appears that our president does not want views that are opposed to
his to be expressed in front of the American public. It appears that he does not want to have to face
up to any unpleasant facts. It once again appears that it’s his way or the highway and the facts be
damned. In addition, it also appears that he has taken the same position as President Roosevelt took
some 70 years ago and that Islamic extremists are expressing today – and that is, Damn
the Jews.